Valiant Ambition: George Washington, Benedict Arnold, and the Fate of the American Revolution

American Revolution #2

by Nathaniel Philbrick

From the New York Times bestselling author of In The Heart of the Sea, comes a surprising account of the middle years of the American Revolution, and the tragic relationship between George Washington and Benedict Arnold.
 
In September 1776, the vulnerable Continental Army under an unsure George Washington (who had never commanded a large force in battle) evacuates New York after a devastating defeat by the British Army. Three weeks later, near the Canadian border, one of his favorite generals, Benedict Arnold, miraculously succeeds in postponing the British naval advance down Lake Champlain that might have ended the war. Four years later, as the book ends, Washington has vanquished his demons and Arnold has fled to the enemy after a foiled attempt to surrender the American fortress at West Point to the British. After four years of war, America is forced to realize that the real threat to its liberties might not come from without but from within.

Valiant Ambition is a complex, controversial, and dramatic portrait of a people in crisis and the war that gave birth to a nation. The focus is on loyalty and personal integrity, evoking a Shakespearean tragedy that unfolds in the key relationship of Washington and Arnold, who is an impulsive but sympathetic hero whose misfortunes at the hands of self-serving politicians fatally destroy his faith in the legitimacy of the rebellion. As a country wary of tyrants suddenly must figure out how it should be led, Washington’s unmatched ability to rise above the petty politics of his time enables him to win the war that really matters.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, American History, American Revolution, Biography, War, American Revolutionary War

427 pages, Hardcover

First published May 10, 2016

About the author

Philbrick was Brown’s first Intercollegiate All-American sailor in 1978; that year he won the Sunfish North Americans in Barrington, RI; today he and his wife Melissa sail their Beetle Cat Clio and their Tiffany Jane 34 Marie-J in the waters surrounding Nantucket Island.

After grad school, Philbrick worked for four years at Sailing World magazine; was a freelancer for a number of years, during which time he wrote/edited several sailing books, including Yaahting: A Parody (1984), for which he was the editor-in-chief; during this time he was also the primary caregiver for his two children. After moving to Nantucket in 1986, he became interested in the history of the island and wrote Away Off Shore: Nantucket Island and Its People. He was offered the opportunity to start the Egan Maritime Institute in 1995, and in 2000 he published In the Heart of the Sea, followed by Sea of Glory, in 2003, and Mayflower. He is presently at work on a book about the Battle of Little Big Horn.

Mayflower was a finalist for both the 2007 Pulitzer Prize in History and the Los Angeles Times Book Award and was winner of the Massachusetts Book Award for nonfiction. In the Heart of the Sea won the National Book Award for nonfiction; Revenge of the Whale won a Boston Globe-Horn Book Award; Sea of Glory won the Theodore and Franklin D. Roosevelt Naval History Prize and the Albion-Monroe Award from the National Maritime Historical Society. Philbrick has also received the Byrne Waterman Award from the Kendall Whaling Museum, the Samuel Eliot Morison Award for distinguished service from the USS Constitution Museum, the Nathaniel Bowditch Award from the American Merchant Marine Museum, the William Bradford Award from the Pilgrim Society, the Boston History Award from the Bostonian Society, and the New England Book Award from the New England Independent Booksellers Association.

from his website

Reviews

[Jeffrey Keeten · Rating 5 out of 5]

”How can we draw the line and say at what precise point [treachery begins]...when the treachery is in progress of execution, or...when the mind is still wavering upon it? In short, how loose and slippery becomes the ground...if...we stray forth in quest of secret motives and designs!”

Lord Mahon, History of England vol. 7, 1854


Benedict Arnold

I wrestle with the idea of Benedict Arnold every time I read any book regarding the American Revolution. He is inescapable. He was a dynamic, aggressive leader, and what danger he put his soldiers in, he put himself in first. He was fearless. I can’t help but draw comparisons with George Armstrong Custer. They were both larger than life and spectacularly flawed. They both smarted over demotions and fumed over others, less deserving, being promoted past them. They both had a battlefield savvy that few leaders naturally possess.

”It was later said that Arnold rode about the field that day ‘more like a madman than a cool and discreet officer...at a full gallop back and forth.’ His seemingly erratic behavior did not prevent him, however, from recognizing a key vulnerability in the enemy line. Arnold might be vain, overly sensitive to slight, and difficult to work with, but there were few officers in either the American or British army who possessed his talent for almost instantly assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the enemy.”

Arnold noticed the competencies of his enemies. If he observed a British officer being a source of inspiration to his men or a being a good tactician, Arnold would ask his men to concentrate all their firepower on that one individual.

Arnold’s relationship with George Washington was one of mutual admiration. Washington respected his courage and his derring do. Washington also felt a twinge of envy because Arnold was exactly the type of commander whom he wished he could be. The crushing responsibility of his position kept him from leading charges and being able to affect the outcome of the war on a very personal basis...eye to eye with the enemy. Not that Washington was always back behind the lines in a tent or watching from the rear. There were many moments during the war when he felt the need to inspire his men by being seen on the battlefield, which also exposed him to the muskets of the enemy. No one ever questions Washington or Arnold’s courage. They had it by the bucketful.

Arnold was such a game changer. He was, without a doubt, the most creative and bold commander of the war. Everybody knows about Fort Ticonderoga and Quebec, but he also was in command at the Battle of Valcour Island where he went nose to nose with the British navy in his undersized boats. He didn’t win, but he didn’t lose either. One of the boats, the USS Philadelphia, was sunk during the battle and was later recovered with the cannonball that scuttled her still trapped in it’s side . The boat now resides in the Smithsonian. Arnold was fighting against ships with mere boats. When night ended the action for the day, Arnold knew he had to use the darkness to escape. Instead of going away from the British ships, he muffled the oars, and slipped between them to the South.

Vintage Arnold, he wanted to not only escape, but also send a message to the British...see what I can do?

At Saratoga, certainly one of the most important battles of the war, Arnold was relieved of command after arguing with General Horatio Gates, a man who was once his friend, but who had turned against him (or, in my opinion, had been manipulated by a General James Wilkinson against not only Arnold but Washington, as well.). Gates did at one point have designs on replacing Washington as the overall commander. There were certainly some bleak moments during the war when the Continental Congress and the soldiers in the field were both starting to question Washington’s abilities.


There is a monument to Arnold’s leg at Saratoga National Historic Park. The wound was serious and debilitating. The leg was two inches shorter than the other leg by the time it finished healing.

Arnold was a problem for Gates, but at the same time he recognized the abilities that Arnold possessed which he lacked. I’m still not sure how I feel about Gates. All of these Revolutionary men were convoluted individuals living in complicated times, so understanding them has more to do with learning about the gray areas of their personality rather than the most prevalent black and white aspects of who they were. So you can imagine Arnold is just livid, absolutely fuming, at being told he wasn’t needed, but being who he was he couldn’t listen to the sounds of the battle and not participate. He grabbed a horse and instinctively went to where he was needed most. He rallied the men and led the charge that broke the back of the Hessian and British defenses and was shot in the same leg he was shot in during the Battle of Quebec.

”I wish it had passed [through] my heart.”

If Arnold had died at that very moment, after that great victory at Saratoga, he would have been immortalized. Elementary schools, streets, buildings, and children would have been named after him. Statues saluting his bravery would have been erected all over the country. He would have been a martyr for the cause.

Alas, it didn’t work out that way.

I’ve always kind of thought that Washington maybe didn’t do enough to help Arnold with his enemies, but Philbrick makes a pretty good case that he actually did. Arnold was one of his best generals and certainly the one that loved to fight more than he liked to play at politics. Arnold’s resentments were numerous, but there was another patriot who had experienced the same issues as Arnold, and he took a completely different tack. John Stark resigned his commission in the Continental Army and went back to New Hampshire where he was promptly asked to raise his own brigade of 1500 men.

Wait a minute. You could do that?

We have to remember that the 13 states were a loose confederation of alliances. In fact, there was a legitimate fear that after winning the war that they would all break out into small countries, so there was a lot of latitude in how they conducted themselves. Really, we weren’t a country yet. So Stark would sometimes use his men to help the Continental Army, and sometimes, if Stark didn’t like the circumstances, he’d flip them the bird and go do what he felt needed done. It kind of sounds like the perfect situation for Benedict Arnold, except for his ambitions to be at the center of everything.

The other problem is Arnold had a lot of financial problems. Some of that is because of the money he spent on the war effort. He spent a good part of his acquired fortune outfitting his soldiers so they could actually fight. The Continental Congress refused to reimburse him. He spent money lavishly, as well. He liked a high lifestyle that required a steady influx of ready money. He was also generous with his friends. He gave Doctor Joseph Warren’s wife and children the staggering sum of five hundred pounds after Warren was killed on Breed’s Hill.


Peggy Shippen Arnold. Is that a barnacle on her head? She seems a bit whey-faced for my tastes.

He also fell in love with Peggy Shippen, a woman who later would be referred to as the most beautiful woman in London. She is from a loyalist family, and most of her friends are loyalist. So does anyone else see a conflict of interest marrying such a woman if you are one of the heroes of the revolution? She also was much more than just a doting wife. She was ambitious, as well, and wanted her husband to advance. It is more than the seeds of a disaster. It is a whole friggin’ tree of tragedy.

I know how things turn out, but it is funny how I read history, and I’m still rooting for a different outcome. Don’t do it Arnold, I yell in my head! *Sigh* Philbrick did not give me an alternative history where Arnold lives happily ever after. I’ve always liked Arnold in the same way I’ve always liked Custer. They are so similar in their abilities and their flaws. ”The same narcissistic arrogance that enabled him to face the gravest danger on the battlefield without a trace of fear had equipped him to be a first-rate traitor.” Custer also had an ambitious wife who was very good with politics. Given the right circumstances, I do believe that Custer might have made the same decisions as Arnold. During the war and even more so during Reconstruction, while serving in Texas, Custer identified more with the Rebels than what was really proper.

If he had been passed over, held back, and ridiculed, would Custer have defected to the Confederacy? Fortunately, he didn’t experience any of that until after the war. He wasn’t called the Boy General for nothing. If anything, he shot through the ranks like a cannonball. I know I’m off the topic of the book, but I couldn’t help thinking about how, very, very similar these two men were. Both legitimate heroes, both thirsty for action, both with strong willed wives, and both with ambitions that go well beyond just being a great soldier.

There is so much more in the book than what I’ve discussed here. Philbrick is a wonderful storyteller, and even if you think you know the events covered in this book very well, Philbrick will add some more nuances to your knowledge. He certainly has inspired me to spend some time researching General James Wilkinson, whose smarmy fingerprints were on just about every bit of controversy and political strife. In many ways, he may have been a bigger traitor than Benedict Arnold, but certainly no one was higher profile than Arnold. I think what made it so difficult for the burgeoning Americans to accept was that Arnold was a hero of the first order. People admired him. For him to defect was much more than just a man defecting to the British. It was as if the concept of what it meant to be an American was being questioned. They hardened their hearts, obviously, and denounced him, but I can’t imagine that his defection didn’t give everyone involved with the war effort just a moment of self-reflection about their own sandy soil allegiance.

If you wish to see more of my most recent book and movie reviews, visit http://www.jeffreykeeten.com
I also have a Facebook blogger page at:https://www.facebook.com/JeffreyKeeten

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

“The United States had been created through an act of disloyalty. No matter how eloquently the Declaration of Independence had attempted to justify the American rebellion, a residual guilt hovered over the circumstances of the country’s founding. Arnold changed all that. By threatening to destroy the newly created republic through, ironically, his own betrayal, Arnold gave this nation of traitors the greatest of gifts: a myth of creation. The American people had come to revere George Washington, but a hero alone was not sufficient to bring them together. Now they had the despised villain Benedict Arnold. They knew both what they were fighting for – and against. The story of America’s genesis could finally move beyond the break with the mother country and start to focus on the process by which thirteen former colonies could become a nation…”
- Nathaniel Philbrick, Valiant Ambition: George Washington, Benedict Arnold, and the Fate of the American Revolution

This is the Nathaniel Philbrick book I’ve been looking for.

Starting with In the Heart of the Sea, I’ve read just about everything Philbrick has written. Until now, however, my reactions have been muted. I liked Mayflower but did not love it; I respected Bunker Hill but it did not stir any appreciable emotions. I never felt like I was wasting my time with Philbrick, since he is a dependable historian, picks interesting topics, and has an eye for piquant details. Nevertheless, I never put down one of his books in anticipation of the next time I’d get to pick it up. I never experienced that slightly breathless sensation you get when a book is really working for you.

Suffice to say, this worked for me from the very first pages.

In Valiant Ambition, Philbrick picks up the story of the American Revolution where he left it at the end of Bunker Hill. Beginning in 1776 and ending in 1780, he presents an overview of a lot of familiar – even cherished – moments of American history: the battles of Trenton and Princeton, the winter at Valley Forge, and the stunning victory at Saratoga. This is all rather standard stuff, though handled with skill. But Philbrick’s specific spin is to relate this oft-told tale using General Benedict Arnold as the fulcrum of events.

The decision to focus on Arnold is an inspired one. Simply put: Benedict Arnold is one of the most fascinating figures in American history. He was ambitious, vain, and thin-skinned; he was bold, brave, and a killer. In a Continental Army filled with aging relics from the Seven Years’ War, unsuited political appointees, and backstabbing strivers, Arnold was one of the Revolution’s true geniuses. There is an argument to be made that without Benedict Arnold, there is no United States.

Of course, there’s also that whole betrayal thing, when an unappreciated, physically ailing, economically straitened Arnold attempted to sell West Point to the British, was nearly caught by a seething George Washington, and changed the color of his uniform. Today, his name is a synonym for treason.

Arnold is both Hector and heel, and Philbrick embraces him as a truly inimitable character, roiling with passions and paradoxes. It would go too far to state that Philbrick excuses Arnold’s actions. Still, he clearly sympathizes with aspects of the man, trusting that – in this age of antiheroes and complex baddies – the time is right for a reappraisal.

Even beyond Arnold, Philbrick’s interpretation of these events is quite shaded. Indeed, Valiant Ambition might be subtitled The American Revolution: The Darkest Timeline. Philbrick portrays the Founding Generation not as the altruistic, self-sacrificing, farseeing demigods to whom we light sparklers every Fourth of July, but as a collection of multifaceted humans, spurred by many competing desires, some of them rather base. There are heroes, to be sure, but also rogues, charlatans, and quite a few men of venality and avariciousness, more concerned with their bank accounts than Enlightenment notions.

At several points, Philbrick refers to the American Revolution as a sordid civil war. This grim tone, though, is actually precisely what this material needs. It does not dampen the achievement of the American Revolution in the least. To the contrary, it makes it all the more remarkable.

Valiant Ambition does not break any new ground. There’s nothing here that I haven’t read elsewhere. For instance, Philbrick, like every other Revolutionary historian, relies heavily on Joseph Plumb Martin, the “Everywhere Girl” of the 18th Century.

What makes this so entertaining is the way that Philbrick positions George Washington, with his godlike aura, his intense self-control, and his rigid personal discipline, athwart Benedict Arnold, the Revolution’s fallen angel, with his emotional outbursts and short-term decision-making. The drama that flows between these two poles is as good as any fiction, and Philbrick captures that reality brilliantly.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am at the point where I know that everything Philbrick produces makes for a stellar read. His works also make a good antidote to my lament from the Everly Brothers song, “I don’t know much about history.” That is especially true about colonial American history. With the help of a couple of McCullough books (“1776” and “John Adams”) and two great books by Philbrick I have gotten a fair foundation. With his “Mayflower”, I got a fulsome story about Plymouth Colony and a remarkable 100 years of relative peace with the Indians, ending with the carnage of King Philip’s War. With his “Bunker Hill” we skip forward to the precursors of the American Revolution and its first year, with Boston and New England the focus of events. That account ended with the English forces retiring from Boston to Nova Scotia. “Valiant Ambition” picks up with the return of General Howe and his brother Admiral Howe to the war and their campaign to take New York.

The early revolution leading from the battles of Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill to the Declaration of Independence gets most of the limelight for the story of the War for Independence. The easy impressions I used to get from these events was that of a smooth path to unification among the Colonies and of the inevitability of success. Time and again in four long years of war that followed Philbrick makes it clear how the outcome of the conflict was far from certain and how much the common mythologies about it are inaccurate: The first lines of his preface grabs our attention with these points:

We all know the story: how a defiant and undisciplined collection of citizen soldiers banded together to defeat the mightiest army on earth. But as those who lived through the nearly decade long saga of American Revolution were well aware, that was not how it actually happened.
The real Revolution was so troubling and strange that once the struggle was over, a generation did its best to remove all traces of the truth. No one wanted to remember how after boldly declaring their independence they had so quickly lost their way; how patriotic zeal had lapsed into cynicism and self-interest; and how, just when all seemed lost, a traitor had saved them from themselves.

It’s a strange kind of war to consider. The actual number of combatants in the war was relatively small, and the territory as stake was huge. The Brits could put only limited forces in play given their far flung empire, never more than a few tens of thousands including German mercenary troops known as Hessians. But they were relatively better trained and were armed with more significant artillery and real warships. The colonies had poorly armed and trained volunteer militia which little capacity to act as a unified and coordinated force. A large fraction of the population still loyal to the British monarchy, and perhaps a majority were not fully committed to the sacrifices required by all-out war. Philbrick captures well the tenuous fate of the nascent republic with a close focus on the character and actions of its military leader Washington and one of his star generals, Benedict Arnold, whose defection to the Brits led to his name becoming synonymous with treachery and betrayal.

Representatives from the colonies met periodically as the Continental Congress and hired the Virginia planter George Washington as commander based on his experience serving the British in the French and Indian War. But there was no national government structure to raise taxes to support a professional army. Each member state of the emerging federation contributed troops on short-term contracts. All decisions of selection of officers for the Continental Army and its strategies were made by a civilian committee of the Congress, a cumbersome political process that made it extremely challenging for Washington to effectively wage war. On several occasions, he worked unsuccessfully to promote Arnold, who time and again showed great initiative starting with his success in 1775 in bringing critical artillery to the Boston conflict overland through northern New England from Fort Ticonderoga. Through Philbrick’s gifted exposition, Washington’s dedication to the cause is contrasted with the more self-serving ambitions of Arnold, which paradoxically contributed both to his effectiveness and to his becoming a turncoat.

My ignorance of these military campaigns was matched by low interest, as it seemed it was all an inevitable footnote to the kickoff of the war in Boston. But there were many turning points. An early one, when Howe had Washington trapped on Manhattan Island, reveals an outcome based largely on Howe’s restraint. He truly believed that a negotiated settlement could be achieved by a demonstration of England’s superior force and capacity to withhold from brutal crushing of rebel forces. In a sense, Howe was prescient to project that the rebellion could not be defeated by simple force of arms. A blockade and occupation of key cities was a fair strategy to wear down the American will to total independence. The vast rural hinterlands of the colonies was impossible to conquer in the conventional sense.

Once Howe had taken New York City, he was stuck with defending it, leaving little flexibility except for brief forays to counter rebel actions in nearby New Jersey, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. These skirmishes gave Washington growing skills in waging a mobile semi-guerilla war in contrast to his initial temptations to gamble on larger battles that would be more definitive. Howe’s concentration on working with his admiral brother to take the capital of the rebellion, Philadelphia, led to his failure to adequately support the key British strategy of dominating the Hudson River valley. Attaining that objective would have effectively divided the colonies by linkage with British strongholds in Quebec accessible to the St. Lawrence seaway, General Burgoyne worked his way down from Lake Champlain in Vermont toward Albany at the headwaters of the Hudson, counting on Howe to work his way up from New York City.


Hudson River Valley and proximity to Lake Champlain and waterway to the St. Lawrence.

Early in this campaign, Arnold’s willingness to take risks showed up in his creative, almost foolhardy naval engagements against the Brits on Lake Champlain (Battle of Valcour Island). This effort and his capacity for subterfuge in defending a small fort further south contributed a lot to slowing Burgoyne’s progress. They were the most exciting and fun to read about for me, so I refrain from any details. I guess the principle of spoilers really does apply to historical narratives, so I also withhold describing what great sedition it was. Arnold was able to make a positive contribution to the defeat of the Brits in the fall of 1777 at the Battle of Saratoga (near Albany), but a severe injury to his leg in the fighting slowed down his capacity for military field action for a long time. In retrospect, historians call this battle a turning point, though three more years of struggle had to play out.

Arnold recovered enough to take up a position as military governor of beleaguered Philadelphia and to marry to an aristocratic bride. His usual pattern of living well beyond his means led to money troubles, and he succumbed to corrupt money-making schemes similar to ones that got him into trouble in the past. Somewhere along the line it became just a small moral step for him to consider betraying the Americans to the Brits for money and position. Getting himself appointed commander of the West Port fort and facilities on the upper Hudson River in 1780 put his in a good position to try something worth big rewards from the Brits.

In the exciting events you can read about here, Arnold’s plot was foiled, and he made an escape to the British side. This book ends pretty abruptly without covering his subsequent career and fate. Nor do we get filled in Washington leading the war to its conclusion. It feels like Philbrick was holding back for another book in his progression. He does, however, weigh how the moral dimensions of Arnold as a traitor have been treated over time. In 1780, he suspects the attempted sabotage of the new republic’s mission energized the choice of many fence-sitters to commit to the struggle for independence. However, I don’t quite see how that justified the tantalizing phrase I quoted from the preface about how “a traitor had saved them from themselves”.

Toward the end of this account, Philbrick made me aware of the contrast between the level of conflict between Loyalist and rebel populations in the North and the near civil war between partisan factions in the South. Though the book focused on military campaigns, Philbrick covers enough of social and political history of the times to justify this vivid picture outlined in the preface:
But the middle of the country was also torn apart by internal conflict, much of it fought along the periphery of British-occupied New York. Here, in this war-ravaged “Neutral Ground,”, where neither side held sway, neighbor preyed on neighbor in a swirling cat-and-dogfight that transformed large swaths of the Hudson River Valley, Long Island, and New Jersey into lawless wastelands.

Philbrick helped me relinquishing my simplistic, semi-romantic conceptions of the Revolutionary War. Yet he doesn’t try to suppress my American’s natural sense of noble cause and pride in the accomplishments of the rebels in founding an independent nation. Even so, I still have the nagging sense that the colonial oppression wasn’t that substantial and that the Canadians and Australians emerged as free nations without having to go through a war.

This book was provided by the publisher for review through the Netgalley program.

[Max · Rating 4 out of 5]

We follow George Washington and Benedict Arnold from the 1776 Battle of New York through 1780 when Arnold deserts to the British. Philbrick portrays Washington as an inspirational leader for his troops. Steadfast and patient, he was not brilliant, but learned from his mistakes. Arnold was very different. He spoke crudely. He was rough, not smooth. While Washington had a penchant for aggressive action, he was analytical and regularly consulted with others. Arnold was blindly headstrong. But Arnold also inspired his men and he was creatively clever. Less thoughtful than Washington he was decisive, never second guessing his decisions as Washington did. Both men started out driven to defeat the British. Washington’s measured style would see him through to the end. Arnold’s preoccupation with personal glory and wealth would take precedence over his commitment to his country.

Philbrick eschews the romanticized history of the Revolution, giving us the gritty reality of political and military leaders who put their own interests first. Washington and a few others were profound exceptions. He fills us in on the constant backbiting, the jockeying for position among the officers of both the Revolutionary and the British armies. Washington was particularly handicapped. He could not pick his own officers. These were selected by the Continental Congress. Arnold saw the Congress promote men ahead of him, despite his widely recognized heroics in the battles for Lake Champlain and Fort Ticonderoga. The temperamental Arnold threatened to quit. Washington backed Arnold and they were mutually respectful but the constant infighting would wear on Arnold. Add on to that the death of a wife he loved, the decline of his property and fortune while he was away fighting, and then when he found a new love, he was rejected. Arnold became increasingly volatile. Washington met with the same backstabbing including efforts to replace him after his defeat in New York. But Washington’s resoluteness was remarkable. Whatever he felt from his humiliating battle defeats and criticism by Congress and other officers, he carried on as though it didn’t matter.

Both Arnold and Washington were challenged by fellow general Horatio Gates, Arnold directly and Washington behind his back. At the battle of Saratoga in 1777, Gates was Arnold’s superior. He sidelined Arnold who he saw as an impudent glory seeker who would steal the credit Gates felt he deserved. Arnold took command of some troops anyway and in leading the charge on some Hessians took a bullet in the leg shattering his femur. Arnold would come away with his body crippled but more significantly his spirit, bitter about his treatment by Gates. He believed his personal sacrifices and service were not properly appreciated. After the battle, Gates began a surreptitious campaign with the Continental Congress to have himself appointed Washington’s replacement. At the time Washington was retreating before the British who took Philadelphia. Washington belatedly learned of Gates dirty work, but his above the fray response was successful. Washington did not just have to fight just the British. He had to fight double-dealing officers in his own army. At the same time he had to fight for supplies for his starving troops at Valley Forge in 1778 and later at an even worse winter in Morristown in 1780. Somehow Washington never lost his cool. He learned to maintain a long term perspective.

In 1778 after the British left Philadelphia, Washington appointed Arnold military governor of Philadelphia. Arnold immediately went about building up his wealth using his position to secure secret trade deals. Arnold felt the country owed him the money, believing his service had cost him his fortune. He also fell in love with the beautiful Peggy Shippen who along with her wealthy father had loyalist leanings. Peggy herself had enjoyed the British occupation making important friends in the British army such as Captain John Andre. Taking out loans and deceiving the Shippens about his wealth, Arnold married Peggy. Arnold, as usual, ran afoul of a very important person, Joseph Reed, President of Pennsylvania’s Supreme Executive Council. Reed, suspicious of Arnold’s dealings, brought charges against Arnold who eventually faced court-martial. With this apparent final straw, soon after their marriage in 1779 Arnold and Peggy decided to make their fortune by becoming traitors. Peggy had the connection through Andre, who was now in charge of British intelligence operations.

Arnold demanded 10,000 British pounds, a huge sum. He knew he needed something significant to offer in return. In 1780, after surviving his court-martial with a reprimand, Arnold found the perfect opportunity. He convinced Washington, who was totally unsuspecting, to give him command of the fortifications at West Point. These kept the British bottled up in New York preventing them from splitting the United States in two along the Hudson. It was the American’s largest and most important fortress. Arnold planned to earn his money surrendering West Point along with its troops to the British. Peggy urged him to reach out to Andre. Arnold arranged a secret meeting with a British counterpart who turned out to be Andre, himself. They spent a day going over detailed plans for a British attack and Arnold’s surrender. Arnold suggested attack routes. He would disperse his troops and make the fortress vulnerable. But things went awry. Andre had to take an unplanned route back to British lines and at the last minute he was captured, the plans discovered. Arnold found out before Washington who was nearby and with the plot foiled he made his escape to the British side. Andre was executed. Arnold became a British officer and Peggy joined him in New York.

The nation was shocked by Arnold. His villainy united the country and renewed its commitment to win the war. Washington, whose troops had starved in the winters of 1778 and 1780, was given more resources. Philbrick notes, “As Arnold had demonstrated, the real enemy was not Great Britain, but those Americans who sought to undercut their fellow citizens’ commitment to one another.” As for Arnold, Philbrick elaborates, “ For Arnold…rules were made to be broken…This did not make Arnold unusual…What made Arnold unique was the godlike inviolability he attached to his actions…Arnold was in the end, the leading personage in the drama that was his life…Arnold did whatever Arnold wanted.” Sadly I could not read this description without thinking of today’s American president.

[Breck Baumann · Rating 4 out of 5]

Profound naval historian Nathaniel Philbrick has undertaken a daunting two-part character study of Benedict Arnold and George Washington, in which their leadership styles and loyalties are compared and analyzed. He begins the book with a precursor to the Revolutionary War leading to the year 1776, and—quite like the brief ending—leaves the bare minimum amount of room necessary for further evaluation. As there are already library shelves dedicated solely to George Washington and Arnold, it was an interesting approach to show the two men early on as compatriots who once held a deep respect for one another as well as the Revolutionary cause.

While Arnold’s background as a brilliant commander of both naval and land battles is often underscored by stories of his treason, Philbrick almost does him justice by focusing an entire chapter on his nautical brilliance on Lake Champlain. However, he regrettably misses the opportunity of covering Arnold’s seizure of Fort Ticonderoga and harrowing march to Quebec—where he earns his true fame and gains the courage that is displayed later on at Lake Champlain and the Battles of Saratoga. It was both fortunate and interesting to see James Wilkinson getting his fair debasement as a true villain, rogue, and schemer even early on in the Revolutionary War. Tensions arise as both General Gates and Arnold are questioned on their dual command in Saratoga, and the eventual victory laurels are rather one-sided:

One cannot help but wonder whether Gates was as much a victim of Wilkinson’s scheming as Arnold. Certainly Arnold’s aide Richard Varick believed this was the case and claimed in a letter to Philip Schuyler that Wilkinson “is at [the] bottom of the dispute between Arnold and Gates.” When word began to circulate around the camp that Arnold intended to leave, many officers voiced their support for the unhappy general.

Philbrick’s tone and prose are easy on the eyes and imagination, as the story of Arnold’s fall from grace is inevitably played out. The reader will find a balanced yet unsympathetic look at how Arnold was eventually led to changing sides at the turning point of the War—as well as experience the hurt, confusion, and outrage displayed by Washington in vivid detail. While unfortunately lacking unanswered but essential questions involving Arnold’s time as a British Officer and his family’s eventual exodus to England, Valiant Ambition as a whole is superbly researched with dates and backgrounds of the main players involved in the treason. Illustrations and maps are generously provided, with over 70 images included that capture all players in the book as well as famous battles.

[Howard · Rating 5 out of 5]

As he was valiant,
I honor him.
But, as he was ambitious,
I slew him.

-- William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

“The real Revolution was so troubling and strange that once the struggle was over, a generation did its best to remove all traces of the truth. No one wanted to remember how after boldly declaring their independence they had so quickly lost their way; how patriotic zeal had lapsed into cynicism and self-interest…. ” – Nathaniel Philbrick, Valiant Ambition


George Washington and Benedict Arnold, the protagonists of Nathaniel Philbrick’s Valiant Ambition, were two of the greatest and most ambitious American military heroes produced by the American Revolution. They were a two man mutual admiration society each of whom had a rendezvous with destiny, albeit destinies that diverged. While one emerged from the war as America’s foremost hero who would later earn the nickname “Father of Our Country,” the other became the nation’s most infamous villain whose name forevermore became shorthand for turncoat and treason.

It is only fitting that Philbrick opened part one of his book with the above quote from Shakespeare, for the story of the respective roles of Washington and Arnold in the American Revolution takes on the proportions of a Shakespearian tragedy.

In his deeply researched and highly readable account, Philbrick sifts and sorts the evidence and shows the reader how it all transpired. He doesn’t rehabilitate Arnold by excusing him from his traitorous actions, but he does explain that Arnold had reasons for colluding with the enemy. On the other hand, he clearly states that those reasons were not good excuses for turning against one’s country.

Nick Romero wrote in his review in the Christian Science Monitor that “Philbrick shows just how many circumstances – lack of earned pay and merited promotion by the Continental Army, a wife with loyalist leanings, the apparent likelihood of imminent British victory – motivated [Arnold’s] decision to defect.”

The point being that in reality Arnold was more sympathetic than what we would like to believe. On the other hand, Washington, who in the end did more than any other individual to prevent a British victory, was in fact more flawed than what popular mythology has always maintained.

Fortunately, Washington was a man of honor who took the high road when it came to ethics and morality and, unfortunately, Arnold took the low road, done in by what Philbrick labels “narcissistic arrogance”; a trait “that enabled him to face the gravest danger on the battlefield without a trace of fear [but also] equipped him to be a first-rate traitor.”

While Washington learned from his mistakes on the battlefield and, despite an inept Congress, maintained his emotional equilibrium under extremely dire conditions, eventually becoming the personification of the patriot cause, the charismatic, mercurial, egotistical, and hypersensitive Arnold became embittered by what he viewed as Congress’ lack of appreciation for his heroic efforts. It was that lack of appreciation combined with personal greed that became the major factors leading to his decision to defect. And even then he was able to rationalize his action by claiming that he was doing it for the good of the nation.

Textbooks generally give us a clean version of our history, leaving out many messy details. When the layers of mythology are removed from any major event in our past, one can bet that the details are much more complex and much more gray than black-and-white than what we have been led to believe. Benedict Arnold’s infamy is a classic example.

As Ned Romero pointed out in his review, “[a]ttributing diabolical villainy to Arnold makes for vivid rhetoric but bad history.”


“…[W]e tend to know as little about Arnold as we do about the rest of the American Revolution. To the extent that it is still taught in schools, the War of Independence is presented as a rather tidy affair. The Founders issued the Declaration of Independence, George Washington and his army spent a hard winter at Valley Forge and then crossed the Delaware, there was an exchange of musket fire and cannonry at Yorktown, and that was that. A new nation is born: Happy Fourth of July.” – John Daniel Davidson, National Review


Nathaniel Philbrick is not a trained historian, but that is not at all a bad thing. His degrees are in English and American Literature, and that is a good thing. He understands that the root word of history is story – and he knows how to tell one. As usual, he uses his gift of language to explain, educate, and entertain while making the reading of history an enjoyable experience. And that is a rare thing.

[Jay Schutt · Rating 4 out of 5]

I expected this book to be more about the defection of Benedict Arnold to the British than a history of the American Revolution. But, in order to understand why Arnold did what he did, you need to know some of his reasoning why. Hence, the history lesson.

This is the fourth book by Nathaniel Philbrick that I have read and he is always very thorough in the information he relates to the reader. I learned many new facts about the revolutionary times and Arnold in particular. Especially the events of Arnold's proposed treasonous acts and how close the Americans came, on more occasions than one, to losing the War for Independence.

This book was very well researched and written. I was not disappointed.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Great men, get great praise, little men nothing.”

For me, the best thing about VALIANT AMBITION is that it was better than its predecessor in Mr. Philbrick’s trilogy about the American Revolution, BUNKER HILL. Much more objective in it examination of its subjects. This text is a great overview of the Revolution in the “northern” sector of the war (NY, PA, VT, Maine, Canada, etc.) from about 1777 to 1780.

First, the quibbles. There are many abrupt transitions of topic without any explanations. If someone did not have a basic familiarity with the subject matter I think it could confuse. Also, in this book Philbrick makes assumptions about people’s motives. He did it in BUNKER HILL as well. I guess it is hard not to. At least in this text he made an effort to base most assumptions on some evidence.

Some highlights include many nice examinations of key moments in the Revolution that I knew only a little about: the Battle of Valcour Bay, the Siege of Fort Mifflin & Mud Island, the machinations of the so called “Conway Cabal”, and others. Many nuggets of interest here that often get overlooked with some of the war’s more “glamorous” moments. The author also does a nice job of humanizing Benedict Arnold and George Washington, the main people of focus in the text, and their good and bad traits are objectively (for the most part) examined. Also well rendered are the machinations and backstabbing of some generals and politicians angling for power and prestige. Even when the cause is just and proper, some humans (maybe most) can’t rise above our natures and stay focused on the more noble effort.

Quotes:
• “A state of revolution is the most seducing on earth.”
• “You are fighting for what you can never obtain, and we are defending what we were never meant to part with.” (Thomas Paine in a letter to British General Howe)
• “If ever destruction was complete, it was here.”
• “We must not in so great a contest, expect to meet with nothing but sunshine.”
• “In the end it had all come down to money. Unwilling to pay the taxes demanded by Great Britain, the American people had fomented a revolution; unwilling to pay for an army, they were about to default on the promise they had made to themselves in the Declaration of Independence.”
• “…in the nation that was to emerge from this seemingly never-ending war, ordinary citizens would ultimately have, whether or not their betters chose to admit it, the last word.”
• “Since republics rely on the inherent virtue of the people, they are exceedingly fragile.”
• “Treason, along with suicide, is the most self-centered of acts.”

I enjoyed VALIANT AMBITION. I think it is the best book I have read (to date) about Benedict Arnold and the causes and consequences of his treason in the larger context of the whole conflict. It is detailed without being bogged down, a history lesson without being dry, and most importantly, about people who are a mix of emotions and qualities. The power and lesson for the reader is in recognizing that we too share those mixed bag of qualities. Which ones will win out in us?

[Scott Rhee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Everybody who has ever taken a high school American history class (and stayed awake in it) is familiar with the name Benedict Arnold and why he’s famous. In case you’re one of the ones who slept through that class, Arnold was NOT the inventor of the Eggs Benedict. He was a hero of the American Revolution who became a traitor by joining the British side. Other than that, most people don’t know or care who Arnold was.

Thankfully, historian Nathaniel Philbrick cares. In his book “Valiant Ambition”, Philbrick highlights the roughly four years (1775 - 1779) in which Arnold went from hero to turncoat, an event which did not happen overnight. Philbrick’s tale humanizes Arnold in a way that no textbook ever can, and he reveals some not-so-wonderful things about the American government during its infancy stages that most textbooks have kept secret.

Alternating between Arnold and General George Washington, Philbrick’s book tells a fascinating and exciting story of the early battles of the American Revolution. Indeed, the first half of the book is a war buff’s sweet dream, as Philbrick writes about the pivotal battles at Fort Ticonderoga, Lake Champlain, and Saratoga. Not being a war buff, I found the first half of the book merely interesting. It’s extremely well-written, to be sure, but descriptions of battles, numbers of casualties, wounded, captured, etc. aren’t my cup of tea. Thankfully, Philbrick---a decent writer as well as historian---intersperses enough human drama to make it readable for someone like me.

The second half really came to life for me, as Philbrick focuses on Arnold’s gradual spiral into treason.


A portrait of Benedict Arnold, painted during his recuperation after being injured in the Battle of Saratoga

Arnold, who was seriously injured in the leg from a bullet wound during the Battle of Saratoga (he had just recovered from a similar leg injury at the Battle of Quebec City a year before), was deemed unfit for service. At this point in Arnold’s military career, this was just fine. He had grown annoyed at the Continental Congress, which he felt was displaying the same kind of corruption and incompetency as the British government it was fighting against.

Arnold was pissed that Congress had not promoted him within the Continental Army but had, instead, promoted five junior officers ahead of him. He felt, rightly, that his proud service was deserving of a promotion. He resigned from the Army, but Washington---sympathetic to Arnold’s unjust treatment by Congress---convinced Arnold to stay.

He rejoined the Army and served under General Horatio Gates in New York. Arnold despised Gates, and the feeling was mutual. At the Battle of Bemis Heights, Arnold defied orders from Gates and pushed back against the British. The resulting battle left the British open to further attack, and they eventually surrendered. Arnold’s actions led to victory for the Continental Army, but Gates ignored Arnold’s part in it and ended up taking credit for the success anyway.

This was the battle in which he received his serious wound. He accepted a position as military governor of Philadelphia in 1778 and settled down to a somewhat quieter existence in the City of Brotherly Love. It’s also where he began to entertain thoughts of treason.


Peggy Shippen, daughter of an extremely wealthy (and loyalist) Philadelphia family

Arnold met and fell in love with Peggy Shippen, a rich girl whose father had Loyalist sympathies. Hurting for money, Arnold considered the kind of financial reward he might receive from the British for vital information and service. That, and the respect that he felt he deserved and wasn’t getting from the Continental Congress. Peggy was also feeding him not-so-subtle encouragements to become a turncoat, as she felt that her wealthy family would have much more success in Britain than in Philadelphia.

All of this eventually came to a head when, in 1779, Arnold held secret negotiations with British military leaders to give up Fort West Point, New York to the British in exchange for a large sum of money and an eventual position in the British military.

Philbrick’s telling of Arnold’s treachery, the unsuccessful British takeover of West Point, and Arnold’s last-minute escape to the safety of the British is as suspenseful as any novel and is just begging to be turned into a movie.

“Valiant Ambition” is a great book about the American Revolution, but it’s also an eye-opening look at an American life that is given short shrift in textbooks and history lessons. Arnold may be a hated figure in American history, but he was still a fascinating flawed human being with a valuable story to tell.

[Dan Lutts · Rating 5 out of 5]

Valiant Ambition tells the story of the American colonies' revolt against Britain by focusing on George Washington and Benedict Arnold, the hero and the traitor. But history is never simple or one-dimensional, even though some people may think it is. Philbrick portrays Washington not as the great military commander of American mythology but as a cautious commander and a poor strategist. The British could have defeated him several times if they had moved a little faster against him. But Washington learned from his mistakes, learned to be more aggressive, and finally won the war (with French help) just as it was about to be lost.

Philbrick portrays Arnold as just the opposite of Washington – an aggressive fighter who is quick to take offense at real or imagined insults. He helped save the revolution in the Battle of Valcour Island Lake on Champlain by delaying the British from capturing Fort Ticonderoga until the next campaigning season. He also played a major role in winning the Battle of Saratoga. Philbrick follows Arnold as he turns from enthusiastic patriotic to embittered traitor because of ill treatment from Congress, debts, and pressure to give his young Tory wife a more expensive lifestyle than he could afford.

Philbrick entitles the Epilogue "A Nation of Traitors." And for good reason. The rebels – Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and others – committed treason against England by rebelling. If the Revolution had failed – and it almost did – they would have been hanged for treason. Arnold had a change of heart and committed "treason" against the rebels but the British might have considered that he'd had a change of heart and wanted to demonstrate his patriotism by helping them defeat the Americans. (One British historian remarked that Arnold was "a brilliant military commander who simply remembered where his allegiance lay.")

According to Philbrick, Arnold's treason galvanized the rebels to stop their infighting and focus on winning their rebellion. But the victor writes the narrative and creates the mythology, transforming the rebels' treason into patriotism.

Just an interesting side note: The Revolutionary War was America's first civil war. About 1/3rd of the people were for it, 1/3rd of the people were against it, and 1/3rd of the people were neutral. The other civil wars were the land warfare in the War of 1812 and the Civil War. If the Confederates had won that war, we'd be 154 years into a different narrative and mythology. Just something to think about. ...

[Jason Koivu]

A new one by Philbrick?! That makes me want to give a cantankerous, middle-aged SQUEEEE of delight!

[Mahlon · Rating 5 out of 5]

In Valiant Ambition, Philbrick chronicles the life and tumultuous times of Benedict Arnold, America's most infamous traitor. I learned a few things about Arnold that I never knew and was reminded of several that I had forgotten. In Philbrick's capable hands A new Arnold biography would've been a great book. However, fortunately for The reader he goes far beyond mere biography here, and tries to understand and explain(Without justifying) what would lead a man to betray his country, in Arnold's case it came down to arrogance, resentment, and pure greed. He also uses Arnold's decision as a jumping off point to explore the context of the wider Revolution, and this is why the book is important, Philbrick explains that Arnold's treachery came at The low ebb of The Revolution at a time when patriot populace was growing apathetic and tired of war. He argues, quite convincingly that Arnold's treachery reinvigorated the cause, and gave the infant nation something to rally around, and that without it, all may have been lost. This book should be read by everyone who enjoys Revolutionary War history or Philbrick's fantastic brand of narrative storytelling. His final assessment of Arnold is worth noting, in committing this act he confirmed everything that everyone had already thought about him.

I have to add that I tend to think of Scott Brick as an overrated narrator. However, his voice was perfect for this project.

[Numidica · Rating 5 out of 5]

In Valiant Ambition, Philbrick does two things which were very helpful to me in understanding the American Revolution: he puts all the major battles and campaigns (except for the last year of the war) in context with at least summaries of the key events, and he explains Washington's and Arnold's involvement in each. Washington is the perfect foil for understanding Arnold; they shared several qualities, but were dramatically different where it mattered most. Both men were almost recklessly aggressive, and in combat men were drawn to them because they were men of action who were completely, almost foolishly brave in battle, but as it turned out, Washington had characteristics that were notably absent in Arnold, and Philbrick's focus on both men illustrates Arnold's missing parts.

Most Americans think of Washington as an aloof, aristocratic figure, stiff and unknowable, but to his closest companions, his aides and generals, he looked completely different. He had an uncanny ability to attract the brightest young men (think Hamilton and LaFayette, but also many others) who became like family to him, and those young men were loyal to him for life. Washington had, first of all, the greatest self-control and self-discipline of any figure from that era, and perhaps any era, and he needed it all to deal with a Continental Congress that was dysfunctional even by today's standards. Congress appointed multiple incompetent generals with whom Washington was obliged to collaborate, and Washington always followed Congress' direction because he firmly believed in civilian control of the military. But he was also sly, and he often found ways to put these politically appointed generals into roles where their true abilities were put undeniably on display, like Gates at the Battle of Camden. Washington skillfully maneuvered and dismantled the Conway Cabal, whose members were working to replace him as commander. He was tactful, patient, wise, and in most cases an excellent judge of character, but he also was full of energy and passion, which his immense self-control hid from view. One might say of Washington, a great leader, but perhaps not a Great Captain, because he made errors early in the war at the battle of New York and at Brandywine River that could have destroyed the army. Yet he learned from his mistakes.

So when it came to Arnold, Washington had more than a little empathy for the man. Arnold had given up a prosperous business to join the Patriot cause, he had been wounded leading his forces at Quebec, and all the men who had served with him in combat praised his brilliance as a tactician and his fearlessness in combat. Arnold then orchestrated the battle on Lake Champlain that prevented the British from gaining control of the Hudson, and through all of this, and later at Saratoga, he was consistently denied his due by Congress; he was passed over for promotion to Major General when he was clearly one of the best battlefield generals in the Army. And all that rankled Arnold. In truth, Arnold was his own worst enemy; off the battlefield he lacked all the virtues that Washington worked so hard to maintain: he was tactless, he was inarticulate, he tended to erupt in rage, and he had a particular knack for poisoning relationships that he should have cultivated. At a battle like Saratoga, he could be everywhere, and see the key to winning the battle, and fearlessly execute a plan, but he could not be humble after the battle. Arnold was a better tactician, at least early in the war, but unlike Washington, he did not learn or grow.

And the differences between Arnold and Washington went far deeper. Washington, despite the typical view of him as some sort of marble statue, was a man full of love and empathy. He was a man who would gladly die rather than betray a friend. His relations with his staff were fatherly. When Hamilton and Washington had a falling out late in the war, I chuckled at the description of it, because it was so much like that which every father has experienced with a teenage son, and of course, ultimately Hamilton and Washington were famously reunited because each deeply appreciated the talents of the other, and there was real affection between them. Washington's love for LaFayette was explicitly like that of a father for a son. When Washington had arguments with others, they were never explosive, but rather tensely civil, and in almost all cases, the parties were either reunited in friendship, or the other person apologized to Washington, as Conway ultimately did.

Arnold lacked the empathy gene, apparently. Philbrick also speculates that he was a narcissist; so it is not always the case that narcissists are physical cowards, like our most recent president. A similar case is MacArthur, who was apparently without fear on the battlefield, but who followed no opinion but his own, and famously struggled to follow orders. There is strong evidence that his wife, Peggy, goaded Arnold into treason for profit, but really, it did not take much to induce Arnold to pursue money in preference to duty and honor. And, like any good narcissist, he wrote a letter to Washington after his betrayal, self-referential in the extreme, justifying his actions in the attempted sale of West Point.

It's a shame Philbrick did not continue his history to Yorktown, but that final year is well documented elsewhere. The author asserts that Benedict Arnold's treason helped unite the Americans in that final year, by showing them how easily everything could be lost, and that sounds right. By the way, the Hudson River is a key character in this history; Philbrick does an excellent job explaining its significance to the War of Independence. N.B., having lived beside that truly majestic river for four years, I enjoyed reading about its role in the Revolution, even though I knew a good deal about it already. One interesting tidbit I learned about Washington was that he had a peculiar heel-to-toe walk, ingrained from his years of backwoods fighting in the French and Indian wars, and he had never lost the habit. Nathaniel Philbrick has written a lively page-turner of a history, and I highly recommend this book.

[David Eppenstein · Rating 5 out of 5]

Our Revolution has always been a period of history I find fascinating. Since retiring I have been able to read about this and other historical periods and events without the guilt associated with neglected professional obligations. It's kind of hard to enjoy a good book when you have so many periodicals and legal advance sheets sitting on, under, and around your desk but that's over and now I can read with abandon.

In the course of my retirement reading I had continually run across the name of Benedict Arnold. It occurred to me that beyond his treason I knew almost nothing about this man. I decided to correct that deficiency and went looking for a biography. I found one that was over a century old which was informative but the language of the author's era was a bit stiff for my tastes. I found other biographies and read all of them because I discovered why the treason of this man Arnold was so devastating. I became a vocal advocate for the belief that Americans needed to know more, a lot more, about this man Arnold. Now, with the publication of a book by an author of the eminence of Nathaniel Philbrick, maybe that will happen. This book is essentially a biography of Benedict Arnold's career during the Revolution. Other biographies are more thorough in their treatment of Arnold's entire life especially in attempts to identify the character flaws that could have predicted his treachery but the absence of this treatment in this work is no real defect. Philbrick's book focuses on the Northern and Central theaters of Revolution and the activities of Washington and Arnold. This history is quite well known and treated here primarily as a basis for the actions of the primary characters and not as a definitive historical narrative. However, what is contained here that I have not read elsewhere are descriptions of the activities of the Continental Congress and its delegates. It also gives more meaningful detail about the actions of the Penn. Executive Council and Joseph Reed and their persecution of Arnold which contributed greatly to pushing him toward the British. The author removes the veneer that has concealed the neglect the Congress, the States, and the Citizens of our emerging republic indulged in during the Revolution. It is made all too clear how really close we were to losing the war and how desperate was the state of the army and the conditions under which Washington was required to act and succeed. The contrast between Washington and Arnold is well worth studying in detail as their respective characters suffered many of the same abuses but went in different directions. There are so many "what ifs" that can be asked while reading this book but that is not for discussion now. Our republic exists today because of the actions of a lot of talented and incompetent men, saints and sinners, virtuous and scandalous men at all levels of society and public office. Arnold seems to have met more of the unsavory kind but just lacked the ability possessed by Washington to know how to deal with them effectively and patiently.

This book will probably become required reading in many history programs and that would be wonderful as the book is a tremendous platform to correct a problem that is part of my advocacy for reading about Arnold. Most of my old classmates that hated history hated it because it was all names, places, and dates that had no value or meaning in their lives. Of course that isn't true but it was the way history was taught. Arnold's life and the events of the Revolution are important because there is so much to be learned from the behavior and actions of the people involved. While it is true that most people will not become generals, or presidents, or congressmen but we will all be involved with other people, groups, employment etc. and the character flaws and virtues exhibited by the people involved in this history are all translatable to everyday lives. It is this translation that history teachers need to highlight and get their students to understand. Arnold was a talented and ambitious man that was also a true believer in the Revolutionary cause. He was passionate and energetic but he had no patience with those whose energy and zeal did not match his own. His soldiers were either devoted to him for his bravery and concern for their welfare or they hated him for his demanding nature. He was a stranger to the concept of diplomacy especially when dealing with politicians or those with political influence. He failed to appreciate the difficulties faced by others off the battlefield and, in turn, the politicians failed to appreciate the hardships and sacrifices made on the battlefields. There is a strong argument to be made that Arnold didn't so much decide to become a traitor as he was pushed in that direction by the abusive, neglectful, and unfair treatment. This is but one of the lessons to be learned by reading about the life of Benedict Arnold but there is so much more.

[Joy D · Rating 4 out of 5]

Non-fiction about two ambitious men during the American Revolution covering the period 1776 – 1780, highlighting the similarities and differences between George Washington and Benedict Arnold. The book reveals the temperament and character of each man, which ultimately resulted in one being viewed a hero and the other a villain. Each is depicted as passionate and valiant, but only one retains a moral compass. It is told in two parts. In the first half, the author sets the stage, describing military battles, troop movements, and strategy. It furnishes the background and context for the reader. The second half picks up momentum, covering Arnold’s treachery and its immediate aftermath. It goes into depth on what happened, how, and why. The author illuminates factors that may have contributed to Arnold’s traitorous actions. I wanted to learn more about the life of Benedict Arnold, and this book filled the bill.

I thought one of the best aspects of this book was the way in which the inner turmoil of the emerging country was portrayed. At this point in U.S. history, there was no way to raise money to support the army except to obtain funds from the states. The starvation at Valley Forge was due to this lack of funds. The executive and judicial branches did not exist. The legislators engaged in power struggles which tended to take precedence over coming to agreement on a course of action. They were wary of providing too much support for a standing army, wanting to ensure the government remained in civilian hands. In addition, since citizens were not united in their desire for independence, the various factions fought each other in “neutral ground” in several states.

The book delivers accessible narrative, meticulous maps, captioned images of people and places, footnotes on each chapter, an extensive bibliography, and an index. It provided insight into the personalities of these historic figures, what motivated them, and how they handled conflict. My only quibbles were that the first half goes into a bit too much description of the military battles for my taste and the ending was very sudden, apparently leaving room for a follow-up. I had to page back to see if I had missed something. Content includes executions and war-related violence. Recommended to those interested in learning more about the American Revolution, prominent people involved, and what really happened.

This book serves as a cautionary commentary about the dangers of “self-serving opportunism masquerading as patriotism” – a lesson we can still use today.

[Steven Z. · Rating 4 out of 5]

By May of 1780 the Continental Army under the command of George Washington had reached a point of no return. According to Joseph Plumb Martin, the son of a minister from Milford, CT, and a soldier who seems to appear at most major Revolutionary War battles, “here was the army starved and naked.” The situation had evolved because of the horrendous winter in Morristown, NJ, the lack of support and funding by the Continental Congress, and the weak infrastructure that plagued Washington’s army. Most Americans were unaware how poorly the American military was outfitted and how the men were forced to live and fight under intolerable conditions for a good part of the American Revolution. This theme is one of the many that Nathaniel Philbrick argues in his new book VALIENT AMBITION: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BENEDICT ARNOLD, AND THE FATE OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. Those who are familiar with Philbrick’s earlier works like the MAYFLOWER AND IN THE HEART OF THE SEA will not be disappointed with his latest effort. Philbrick continues his narrative works dealing with the American Revolution and has written another evocative and fascinating historical monograph that should be attractive to the general public and professional historians. Philbrick’s approach rests on the exploration of the personalities, military capabilities, and the “valiant ambitions” of George Washington and Benedict Arnold. In addition, Philbrick weaves into the narrative the economic hardships, societal relationships, and battlefield experiences of the lower classes who fought the war.

The book builds up to a situation where one of Washington’s greatest generals came to decide that the cause to which he had given almost everything no longer deserved his loyalty.” Of course that general is Benedict Arnold, a brilliant military tactician on land and sea, but also a person who possessed an ego that surpassed most people of his age. His sense of entitlement knew no bounds and after his leg was shattered in battle and many of his investments did not bear fruit he contemplated how he could recoup much of his wealth that he claimed was lost in support of the revolution. Further exacerbating his psyche was his infatuation and love for Peggy Shippen, whose father Edward was a wealthy loyalist and to win her hand in marriage he had to create the wealth that she had grown accustomed to. Politics also played into Arnold’s bitterness toward the colonial government in that Joseph Reed, the President of Pennsylvania’s Supreme Executive Council and the most powerful man in the state launched an investigation into Arnold’s conduct as military governor of Philadelphia. This would lead to Arnold’s trial which on top of previous episodes of fighting for his proper rank made Arnold ripe for treason. Philbrick does a masterful job following Arnold’s path to becoming a spy and integrated many primary documents to highlight all aspects of Arnold’s overblown sense of his own importance and the resulting trial and court-martial.

Philbrick effectively contrasts General Arnold with George Washington a man who did not measure up to Arnold as a military tactician, but was the type of individual who eventually would learn from his mistakes. The Washington that Philbrick presents is a man who must fight his “inner demons” which were his naturally aggressive tendencies. By the spring of 1777 Washington argued for a “War of Posts,” a defensive strategy that made perfect sense against the British. However, he would repeatedly violate this strategy by assuming the offensive at Brandywine and Germantown which resulted in the British occupying Philadelphia for eight months. As a result Washington finally learned to control his offensive instincts and do what was best for his army and country. Washington had been placed in the untenable position by the Continental Congress that put him in command of the army to prosecute the war, but would not allow him to choose his own officers, on which he had to depend on most. To his credit Washington realized the limitations that were placed on him were due to the politicization of the war and decided to deal with the situation as best he could. On the hand Arnold was emotional and impulsive at times, but was a sound military thinker who, unlike his commander, had the ability to outthink his opposition and take advantage of the topography available to him. I agree with Philbrick that Arnold’s “narcissistic arrogance that enabled him to face the gravest danger on the battlefield without a trace of fear had equipped him to be a first-rate traitor.” It is interesting to note that had the Continental Congress headed Washington’s advice concerning Arnold’s promotion and seniority he might have gone down in history as one of the immortals, not someone who has been labeled a traitor.

Philbrick’s narrative is not a complete history of the American Revolution, but he assimilates the most important battles into the narrative, the strategies employed by Generals Burgoyne, Howe, and others for the British, in addition to Generals Horatio Gates, Philip Schuyler and others for the Americans. The book is enriched by the competition between these men, in particular Gates’ attempt to seize command of the army from Washington. Further, the reader is exposed to sectional political machinations between the New England, Atlantic, and southern states that fostered much of the domestic and internal military hostility that existed during the fighting. Philbrick is a meticulous researcher and this is reflected in his unique story telling ability and novelistic detail. However, if there is an area that Philbrick could have developed further, it is the lack of interactions between Washington and Arnold, particularly during the first half of the book. The author could have spent less time describing battle details, though highlighted with excellent maps, and devoted greater emphasis on the two main characters in the narrative, how they interacted with each other, and the ramifications of those interactions.

Philbrick reaches an interesting conclusion in that Arnold did the young nation a tremendous service through his treason. During almost five years of fighting the Continental Congress was rather disjointed, rivalries between regions detracted from any hope of unity, and the military situation was poor. Arnold’s treason galvanized the American people against him and created a sense of common purpose. Though the people had come to revere George Washington as a hero, it was not sufficient to bring the people together, but now they had a despised villain to accomplish that goal. The real enemy for the young nation was not Great Britain but those Americans who sought to undercut their fellow citizens’ commitment to one another. Philbrick’s argument is rather interesting and a bit overstated, but he argues it quite well. VALIENT AMBITION is a fascinating study and will make a wonderful addition to any library of the American Revolution.

[Yibbie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Have you ever read a history book in which the author is so obviously biased that it makes you wonder if he would rather have been writing a eulogy? No matter what Arnold does from constantly challenging his superior’s plans, giving passes to Loyalists, or plotting to surrender West Point is presented as the best possible action under the circumstances. He is presented as ever the boldest, bravest, cleverest leader, and nothing is every his fault.
We are given only brief hints at the personal failings, like his constant financial struggles, personal indiscretions, and willingness to lie for personal gain, oh, and selling out those he was sworn to lead and protect. So, it appears that his only problem is that politicians just won’t recognize his obvious perfection. Every time he is passed over for promotion it is presented the implied reason is that the other person is vindictive or a poor judge of character. So really no one other than Arnold and Washington is ever presented as being anything other than second rate and lucky. That got aggravating. The last chapters show a much more rounded view of his motives. Even here though, the author tries to shift most of the blame onto Arnold’s wife for convincing Arnold to betray the American cause.
This book covers Arnold’s career from the beginning of the war through the death of his co-conspirator, Major John Andre. Those years are covered in excruciating detail, with the focus mainly on troop movements, battles, and political maneuverings. Scattered throughout are brief personal details.
It wasn’t that I disliked this book. The style is engaging and fast-paced, it’s just that it might be skewed. So have an enjoyable read, but be cautious.

[Deacon Tom F. (Recovering from a big heart attack) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Philbrick writes another winner!!

Well Researched and referenced book about one of the most crucial turning points in the American Revolution.
It was a huge surprise to me that General Arnold bwas one of the hardest fighting leaders in the Revolution and a highly placed favorite of General George Washington.

I was also Impressed with the number of maps and supporting supporting pictures.

As a history buff, I really enjoyed this book.

For those who are into history--I recommend.

[Alan Tomkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Magnificent. Well researched history that reads like a fast paced, action packed thriller. Includes many details not covered in other histories of the Revolutionary War. I love this book and highly recommend it.

[Dan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book about Benedict Arnold. Philbrick masterfully interweaves Arnold’s story with the larger story of the Revolutionary War and the pivotal battles fought in the north.

Prior to reading this book, I did not have an appreciation for how pivotal Arnold’s leadership was, early in the war, to America’s success. I also found it fascinating how he wanted to live like royalty when he was appointed military leader of Philadelphia while he recuperated from a shattered leg suffered at Saratoga, his second major war injury.

So it was his financial situation and greed that did the rapscallion in. Getting passed over for promotions, despite Washington’s attempts to vouch for him with the continental congress, may have precipitated Arnold’s traitorous path to some degree. But the prospect of riches and becoming a land baron were there all along.

It is easy for us some 240 years later to assume that America would win the rebellion but even by 1778, halfway through the war, few thought America would win their complete independence for all the colonies. Even Washington had serious doubts.

I found the extensive research brought out a more complete picture of the man for me than I’ve read elsewhere. I also found the brief history on the neutral area full of outlaws and brigands in Westchester county to be fascinating. I knew the history of the other battles and fortunately Philbrick provided only the relevant battlefield information related to Arnold or Washington’s involvement. As an aside, the battle maps were very well done.

Philbrick is a first rate historian and storyteller, the latter half of the book was exceptional. Bravo.

[Quo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just as even well-known stories often have a subtext or an often hidden opposing vantage point, Valiant Ambition: George Washington, Benedict Arnold & the Fate of the American Revolution by Nathaniel Philbrick, introduces his reader to some little known details about the evolving relationship between America's revolutionary leader & the man branded as its most infamous traitor. It isn't so much that the reader is able to be sympathetic to Arnold's behavior but it becomes clear that many would-be Americans had mixed allegiance, with some remaining loyal to Great Britain for a variety of reasons, while others switched loyalties at some point during the revolutionary struggle, occasionally more than once.



Reading Philbrick's book, it seems a matter of luck & the intersection of poor generalship on the part of the British that what became the United States eventually prevailed over the better equipped, better trained & the far more polished military forces of Great Britain, aided by German Hessians & at times Native American tribes. However, as the author points out, there was no standing revolutionary army to support the Continental forces, just a collection of rudimentary militias from the 13 colonies, each with a very different consistency and a primary loyalty to their home state that very often far exceeded their enthusiasm for a hoped-for unified America.

Thus, the New England militias were far more anti-British than the recruits from Pennsylvania, a colony founded by peace-loving Quakers who were not particularly hospitable to the idea of full revolution even if they nurtured some grievances against the British. Philadelphia was the site of the Continental Congress but held in its midst many who were neutral or who were even avowed loyalists, while the New England forces tended to be far more stalwart in their opposition to England.

Beyond that, some of the militias espoused regional or sectional antagonism toward each other, while many were on rather short-term contracts with less enthusiasm for battle as they neared the end of their term of service. All of this made George Washington's job exceedingly difficult, especially after some early losses in the Revolutionary War seemed to turn momentum in favor of the British. His grab-bag of patriot forces were often said to be "sustained far more by individual courage than by military discipline."

We learn that Benedict Arnold was often impulsive & described as "more pathetic than heroic & an outrageous provocateur." He had a knack for making enemies but he was also extremely bold & courageous in battle, showing considerable initiative in both the Revolutionary War vs. Britain & the French & Indian War that preceded it. He was twice severely wounded, several times passed over for promotion & often threatened to resign his command post. Furthermore, Arnold had lost quite a lot of his own personal fortune in supporting the revolutionary cause.

Washington advocated on Benedict Arnold's behalf because of Arnold's stamina in battle & his ability to quickly devise alternative strategy in fighting the British. George Washington on the other had is portrayed by Philbrick as extremely patient, humane & honest to a fault and someone his disparate forces looked to for a sense of unifying leadership qualities no one else seemed to demonstrate. Washington is not depicted by the author to have been particularly shrewd either in terms of military tactics or long-term strategy.

One of Washington's mistakes seems to have been appointing someone with Benedict Arnold's record as an alienating force when not in battle as military governor of Philadelphia. There, he proves self-serving & with a divided loyalty among the many pro-British residents, eventually leading to a court martial. While Arnold's defense is shrewd and almost theatrical in tone, avoiding guilt on most charges but ending up with only a reprimand, he still feels aggrieved at even this minimal defeat. The reprimand, together with his new wife, the daughter of a loyalist very sympathetic to the British, seem to have been the catalyst causing Arnold's eventual treason. As Philbrick puts it:

Arnold ventured into a realm of hypocrisy that can be described as sublime. Like Shakespeare's King Lear raging on the storm-blasted heath, Arnold felt himself "more sinned against than sinning" and in his delusional faith in his own honesty he felt justified in accusing his adversary of exactly the transgression he was about to commit. He was providing the British with vital military information & thus guilty of crimes that were far blacker than anything brought forward in the trial, which did not prevent him from launching into his defense with an eloquence & verve that was enough to take one's breath away at the sheer audacity of the man.

Does this not sound a tad familiar to anyone present in the "Age of Trump"? In any case, not for the first time, Benedict Arnold "had picked a self-destructive quarrel with the very people upon whom his future depended". In spite of the man's rather obvious faults, George Washington seemed to have a blind spot when it came to Arnold, his contentious major general. With losses in battle & the expanding problem with Arnold, Washington is at times dispirited, particularly given the lack of any consistent funding for the patriotic struggle he was commanding, seeing the Continental Army withering & the former colonies potentially reduced to a "quarreling collection of 13 sovereign states."



Benedict Arnold's perfidy seems in part spurred by his wife Peggy, acting as a Lady Macbeth figure and it was only by chance that Arnold's scheme to deliver the pivotal American base at West Point to the British failed, this at a time just after he was appointed to be its commander. Had the plot been successful, it would have given the British strategic control of the Hudson & perhaps have ended the war for American independence.

Alas, Arnold escapes to join the British cause but eventually his British co-conspirator in the plot is caught & after a quick trial, hung. Nevertheless, at this point of extreme disappointment & budgetary austerity, Washington somehow became the ultimate unifying force, guiding his troops through to victory, in part because Great Britain decided that it could no longer support the cost in terms of lost treasury & fallen troops in the extended fight vs. the American patriots, a decision that may have been prompted when France decided to join forces with the Americans.

Valiant Ambition will be of particular interest to those who enjoy following fairly minute details of the various revolutionary war battles. Nathaniel Philbrick is a masterful writer & an avid sailor but the reader is at something of a disadvantage at times if not fully aware of the many different types of 18th century sailing ships & nautical regalia, including the importance of various types of rigging, sail formations & appropriate terminology. A glossary would have been very helpful in acquainting the reader with just how these nautical details could work to the advantage of either the British navy or its American counterpart.

There seems an authorial suggestion that the treason of Benedict Arnold ultimately became a rallying point for American unity, something I did not follow. Also, I felt the book ended somewhat anticlimactically. With these concerns in mind, I found my knowledge of the American Revolutionary War much-enhanced & enjoyed the book very much.

*There are 32 pages of black & white photos within the book + many other maps & sketches. Within my review, the first photo image is of author Nathaniel Philbrick, while the second is of George Washington (at left), beside the image of Benedict Arnold.

[Faith · Rating 2 out of 5]

I enjoy reading political history and social history but I really dislike military history and unfortunately that's all this book seemed to be about, at least the first part of the book which is all I managed to read before abandoning it. I received a free copy of this book from the publisher but I wound up borrowing and listening to the audiobook from the library. The narrator didn't manage to make the book any less boring.

[Aaron Million · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nathaniel Philbrick has turned in another wonderful effort, this time focusing on George Washington and Benedict Arnold in the heart of the American Revolution. Giving roughly equal time to both men, as well as deftly mixing in much-needed context of what generally was going on in a nascent America, Philbrick maintains a clear-eyed view of Arnold's treachery as well as Washington's mistakes and subsequent learning from them. He succeeds in showing that Arnold's story is more complex than simply saying he was a traitor, while also pointing out how Washington struggled to control his aggressive battle instincts.

Washington suffered from the constant meddling and lack of financial support from the Continental Congress. The result was that he had a ragtag, ever-hungry army who kept suffering from desertions, disease, and death. Washington had some serious missteps following the Battle of Bunker Hill, being outmaneuvered by the British on Long Island and later at Brandywine Creek and Trenton. But Washington, as he was wont to do in other areas of his life, learned to control his impetuosity and preference for attacking, and instead adopt a long-term view, ultimately realizing that there was more pressure on the British to win the war than there was on him, as Britain was expected to win, and win easily. That they did not is somewhat of a miracle.

Arnold also suffered at the hands of the Continental Congress. He engaged in a long-running feud about his rank, and then his seniority. Always present, and increasingly taking a primary position, was the matter of his finances. Arnold liked high living and had gotten used to having money after having built up a fairly large nest egg as a merchant in Connecticut. But the Congress was petulant and cheap, and Arnold was not treated well in return for his significant efforts - partially through his own ill-temper and partially because of the pettiness of some of the Massachusetts delegates such as John Adams. Arnold repeatedly put his life on the line for the American cause, being seriously wounded in his left leg three different times.

Philbrick picks up the story in 1776, after the Declaration of Independence was signed, after the significant events of 1775, and after Arnold's unsuccessful invasion of Montreal. In some ways, this is a sequel to his Bunker Hill where Arnold was barely in it and Washington was a supporting figure. He alternates back and forth between the two men as, while they occasionally met and seemed to like each other, most of the time they were in different places. Sprinkled in are occasional discourses on what the state of the war was at the time. That is key to understanding the context that Washington and Arnold had to operate in. These men were not living and working in a vacuum, although it probably seemed that way to both at separate times.

One area where Philbrick especially excels at is in reviewing the various battles that took place during this focused time period (which ends in Arnold's defection to the British in September 1780). Philbrick provides just enough detail to know how the battles were planned and then how they played out without being overly detailed or gory. Augmenting these battle descriptions, and this was essential to helping my understanding, were multiple well-placed and easy-to-read maps that helped me to envision the topography and movements of the various armies, along with local landmarks and land fortifications. The final map detailed Arnold's defection, the route he took and the route of British major John Andre that led to his capture.

The beauty of Philbrick's writing here is that even though I knew how things turned out, especially after having recently read Willard Sterne Randall's biography of Arnold, I was still eager to get to the next page. Unlike Randall, Philbrick is more even in his handling of Arnold. Whereas Randall tended to give Arnold the benefit of the doubt on many of his dealings with Congress, Philbrick paints a much more neutral portrait that showed both sides antagonizing each other. Arnold did not deserve the poor treatment that he received, but he was also his own worst enemy and brought a lot of the venom upon himself. His second wife, Peggy, is also looked at with a much less understanding and more critical eye. After finishing Randall's book, I had suspected that she was a big factor in Arnold's eventual decision to sell himself to the British and try to surrender West Point. After finishing Philbrick's books, I am convinced that she was the impetus for his fateful decision and that, while in no way letting him off the hook here, he did not seem to ever think of going over to the British until after he had met her and then married her (or, at a minimum, he did not write of it).

Arnold had some good traits but he had a selfish and ultimately destructive personality. He had no qualms about using people to suit his own needs. Sometimes those needs coincided with that of the colonies; sometimes they didn't. Washington had his own issues, but managed to subjugate them to the greater cause. Washington also learned from his mistakes - something that Arnold seemed to be incapable of doing.

Philbrick also accurately reviews the tensions between loyalists and patriots. Both sides committed crimes against each other. The Revolution was never a foregone conclusion. As Philbrick writes, it was zealous Americans who didn't want to be subjugated any longer to the whims of Great Britain against other Americans who viewed the first group as traitors and greedy, with most Americans honestly not caring too much one way or the other as long as their lives were not negatively impacted. From page 322: "The United States had been created through an act of disloyalty. No matter how eloquently the Declaration of Independence had attempted to justify the American rebellion, a residual guilt hovered over the circumstances of the country's founding."

The only thing that I wish Philbrick had included was Arnold's subsequent time as a Brigadier General in the British Army, and his vicious sacking and pilfering of Richmond, VA. But I understand why he ended the story at the time of Arnold's defection. Arnold and Washington were done with each other at that point. Arnold was also done with America by then, at least in his heart, and America was certainly done with him.

Grade: A

[Diane S ☔ · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thoughts soon.

[Louise · Rating 5 out of 5]

Through the stories of Washington and Arnold, Nathaniel Philbrick gives a condensed view of the American Revolution. In his snapshot you see not just a colony bulking at a superpower, you also see a civil war. Inside the revolutionary faction of that war there are self-less patriots alongside self-dealing careerists. Like a novel it is laid out with scenes that develop characters through their actions that foreshadow a climax.

George Washington, according to Philbrick is aggressive and tightly self-controlled but he shows a few outbursts of temper. His (loss) withdrawal from New York was strategically brilliant. You see his big wins in Trenton (particularly well written) and Princeton, and losses at Brandywine and Germantown and an inconclusive Monmouth. He has great stature among his men but has to contend with the “Conway Cabal” which is intent on knocking him down. It may be that his experience with jealous rivals makes him sympathetic to Arnold.

Benedict Arnold is shown to be a loud mouth risk taker. Despite his bravery and strategic savvy he cannot get credit for his victories. You see him keep the British from invading from Canada. You see his actions at Saratoga as critical to its win for which the untalented General Gates get the credit. You see the loss of recognition add to the loss of his fortune (spent on the revolutionary cause) and the loss of his wife (she died while he was away fighting) and being undermined by colleagues and superiors. You see Arnold fall in love, and fall in love again. You see him turn his coat.

Generals had to work with an army that was outnumbered, outgunned the cash starved. The overall plan to fight skirmishes and defensive battles to protect resources was not always followed. Philbrick shows how the strategies as devised by Washington and Arnold fit their personalities and legacies if not the overall plan.

As the book comes to its climax (strange concept to apply to non-fiction, but this is how it feels) which is Arnold’s treachery you see the inevitability of his crossing the line. Two new well drawn characters take center stage: Arnold’s Tory wife, Peggy Shippen and John Andre an adjunct General in the British Army. The betrayal, the “confessions” and the end of Andre are page turners.

There are lots of B & W cameos. The battlefield maps make the narrative on strategy easy to follow; each is placed on just the right page. The index is labeled which makes it very helpful. There are extensive notes.

This is a great book and I recommend it to anyone interested in US history. Beyond the circle of readers it would be great on the screen. I’m hopeful it finds its way to a film producer.

[Kathleen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Philbrick is a superb historian and writer, garnering a National Book Award (In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex). However, it takes real skill to make a reviled traitor a sympathetic character. Not a lot mind you—but nevertheless—it is still a laudable accomplishment.
Arnold was a talented, charismatic soldier that had a gift for seeing the flaws in enemy lines and courageous enough to exploit them. He exhibited acts of intelligence and bravery in the following: Capture of Fort Ticonderoga in 1775, Battle of Valcour Island on Lake Champlain in 1776, the Battle of Ridgefield, the Siege of Fort Stanwix, and the Battles of Saratoga in 1777. However, he was also ‘prickly and hotheaded’.

Convinced that he should live like an aristocrat, he lived well beyond his means; and, as a result, involved himself in various dodgy schemes to make some money on-the-side. Not surprisingly, he ran into resistance from fellow Revolutionary Generals and the Continental Congress. Resentments followed. But it was his love for the Loyalist Peggy Shipman that caused him to turn against his country. She sowed the seeds of discontent and convinced Arnold that he would be a hero by facilitating the end of the war by helping the British—and earning a tidy sum along the way. Provides great perspective of this period of history.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Valiant Ambition: George Washington, Benedict Arnold, and the Fate of the American Revolution by Nathaniel Philbrick exposes readers to a side of Benedict Arnold that is virtually unknown to Americans. The author shares the results of painstaking research into this part of our history where we learn that unlike the notorious traitor to America that he surely was, it didn't have to be that way. He was one of our most daring and brave officers in the Continental Army and won many battles that were critical to the revolution. But he was also human and after having his superior officers take credit for his accomplishments, being passed over for promotions he well deserved, and being spoken ill of behind his back, he became disillusioned with advancement opportunities and having to serve under others that he did not respect. He had also fallen on financial hard times and all of this opened him up to being susceptible to betray his country for money. There are many other factors that contributed to his mental condition at the time but that doesn't excuse what he did. The act of betrayal itself is explained in detail as well as how it fell apart and his escape from capture. Well researched and written making it hard to put down.

[Sonny · Rating 5 out of 5]

― “…now that Arnold was to be judged by a military tribunal, it was imperative that as commander in chief he view the proceedings with as much objectivity as possible. To do otherwise—to voice private sympathies in the context of an official proceeding—would require Washington to become, in his own words, “lost to my own character.” Here, in reference to character, Washington hit upon the essential difference between himself and Arnold. Washington’s sense of right and wrong existed outside the impulsive demands of his own self-interest.”
― Nathaniel Philbrick, Valiant Ambition

Nathaniel Philbrick has written several books on US history, many of which take place on or by the sea. In 2000, his book In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex won the National Book Award for Nonfiction. That he would write about the sea should come as no surprise. Philbrick was Brown University’s first Intercollegiate All-American sailor in 1978. After grad school, he worked for four years at Sailing World magazine. He and his wife currently live in Nantucket.

With Valiant Ambition, Philbrick largely stays on land. It is a book on the American War for Independence and the infamous general Benedict Arnold and his relationship with George Washington. The title of the book derives from a quote in William Shakespeare’s Julius Caeser:

“As he was valiant, I honor him. But, as he was ambitious, I slew him.”

Benedict Arnold’s name become synonymous with treachery. I knew in my childhood that he was a traitor. Instead of being some gloriously quick dash to victory, the American Revolution was a tough slog for eight years. There were times when “His Excellency” George Washington thought the cause was lost. It seemed that the American people were losing interest, and the Continental Congress struggled to raise money without the power to tax.

Benedict Arnold’s story reflects much of what went wrong in the Revolution. As Philbrick demonstrates, America’s most notorious traitor was a battlefield hero early in the Revolutionary War. His performance in taking and holding Fort Ticonderoga, invading Canada, delaying the British advance on Lake Champlain, his leadership during the Battle at Valcour Island, and at Saratoga were examples of his brilliant battlefield leadership. Washington realized Benedict Arnold’s value and did what he could to support Arnold.

Seriously wounded in the Battle of Saratoga (the same leg in which he had been wounded at Quebec), Benedict Arnold became angry and irritable. When the Continental Congress foolishly passed him over for promotion to major general in favor of some mediocre brigadiers junior to him in seniority of service, it was an insult to his good name. It was a promotion Washington thought he should have. Unfortunately, Arnold was the victim of petty backbiting in Congress.

― “Arnold might be vain, overly sensitive to slight, and difficult to work with, but there were few officers in either the American or British army who possessed his talent for almost instantly assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the enemy.”
― Nathaniel Philbrick, Valiant Ambition

Yet, Benedict Arnold’s betrayal was not inevitable. He was an enthusiastic patriot who believed passionately in the cause of American liberty. Knowing the recovering Benedict Arnold could not take a field command, named him the military governor of Philadelphia. This brought Arnold into contact with Joseph Reed, President of Pennsylvania's Supreme Executive Council. Reed carried on a public feud with Arnold, accusing him of corruption.

Arnold demanded a military trial and successfully cleared his name, although his reputation was damaged. Arnold resigned his post in Philadelphia. As much as anything, the charges brought by Reed probably led to Arnold to later commit treason. These charges became public around the time of Arnold’s marriage to Peggy Shippen, who had contacts with British officers.

― “The same narcissistic arrogance that enabled him to face the gravest danger on the battlefield without a trace of fear had equipped him to be a first-rate traitor. Arnold had never worried about the consequences of his actions. Guilt was simply not part of his makeup since everything he did was, to his own mind, at least, justifiable.”
― Nathaniel Philbrick, Valiant Ambition

Yet this book is not only about Benedict Arnold. Philbrick does an excellent job of contrasting Arnold with George Washington, particularly with regard to their temperaments. He particularly shows the difficulties that Washington faced during the war and the challenges he faced in handling difficult people. Those interested in the American Revolution, George Washington or Benedict Arnold will thoroughly enjoy this history.

[Sweetwilliam · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nathaniel Philbrick’s latest book, A Valiant Ambition is a masterstroke of insight into two of the most important men of the American Revolution: Benedict Arnold and his Excellency, George Washington. To me, Arnold is one of the most interesting characters in American history. The fact is, had Arnold been killed at Saratoga, he would have also been one of the most revered. However, it is not how you start. It’s how you finish. And we all know that Arnold finished poorly. Philbrick’s work helps to compare and contrast Washington, who started slow but finished well, with Arnold who started well and finished poorly.

As a subordinate, Arnold seems to be one of Washington’s favorites. Arnold is irascible and poor at politicking but he fights. Like Patton he had genius for war. Like Custer he could quickly assess a weakness in the enemy line and exploit it. Throughout the war he would have several horses shot out from under him, his clothing riddled with bullet holes, and he would be shot in the left leg with musket balls on two separate occasions.

In part one, Philbrick describes how Arnold was this young nation’s best field officer. The man who’s name is synonymous with the word traitor was responsible for the following:

*Captured Fort Ticonderoga so that’s forts guns could be used to lay siege to Boston and force the British to leave.
*Led the right wing of a two pronged attack into Quebec and was shot in the left leg while storming the fortress of Quebec City.
*Built a Navy on Lake Champlain and challenged a much stronger British naval force. In losing, Arnold would force the British led by Guy Carleton to withdraw from upstate New York for another year.
*He harassed a British raiding party that was 5 times larger than his own while having two horses shot out from under him.
*He saved a fort from surrender by an ingenious method
*After being relieved of command he led a decisive charge at Saratoga that resulted in the first major British loss and the French entering the war on the side of the Americans. Arnold would take a musket ball to his leg that would shatter his femur.


Meanwhile, Philbrick describes Washington as a man who was outgeneraled by the British at nearly every turn with the exception of the battle of Trenton and Princeton. According to Philbrick, Washington’s forte was the hit-and-run style used by the natives. In Valiant Ambition, Philbrick analyzes several poor decisions by Washington. He claims that Washington was not a good battlefield thinker. However, Washington had a way to persevere. He would keep his army alive to fight another day. At his rank and position he couldn’t take the risks that Arnold could as a Major General.

Philbrick brilliantly paints a picture of colonial America which was less rosy than I imagined. The continental congress was a mess. They hadn’t worked out the kinks of how to govern. Congress had no power to tax. Washington argued that a professional army was required to defeat the British. Adams distrusted the continental army and preferred the militia. Adams believed a standing army would eventually topple the government. Soldiers like Arnold lost their fortunes while going off to war and they were paid in some worthless Continental script. Also, on the invasion of Canada, Arnold reprovisioned the survivors of the Maine wilderness (500 died on the way) and he was never reimbursed by the Congress. There was much distrust, backbiting and inefficiency. Washington had the power to rise above petty politics while Arnold did not.

There was no shortage of so-called patriots with less than a valiant ambition. In fact, Washington had several on his staff early in the war. Most notable was Joseph Reed. On the eve of the battle of Trenton, Reed was said to have considered changing sides. He was even caught sending letters to other officers that were critical of Washington. Later in the war, after the British evacuated Philadelphia, the lawyer Reed was the head of a tribunal to charge several Loyalists with treason. There was little in the way of evidence but that didn’t stop Reed from convicting two Quakers who were hanged. Their only real crime was that the Quakers were well to do and this was class warfare at its finest. This was very much like McCarthyism of the 1950s or like the political correctness you see on the college campuses today. Reed was a zealous hypocrite and such hypocrisy was in abundant supply in colonial America. After hanging the Quakers the sanctimonious Reed would change his focus to Arnold.

Another dubious character was Horatio Gates. He once called for a special session of congress to advance his own agenda. During the battle of Saratoga, Gates never left his tent to visit the battlefield. If it weren’t for Arnold (whom Gates relieved on the eve of the battle) the hapless Gates would have never known victory yet he took the credit. Later in the war it was revealed to Washington in the infamous Conway Cabal that several officers were trying to persuade congress to replace Washington with Gates.

Arnold was victim of many personal attacks and slights from congress and fellow officers. While Arnold was fighting the British to his front he seemed to be constantly defending his back from fellow patriots at the same time. Arnold had reason to gripe. However, many of the problems that Arnold had with congress such as being passed over for promotion etc. were eventually corrected. It seemed that for Arnold it was never enough.

Sometime after Saratoga, when Arnold was still convalescing from his second wound in as many years, he seemed to have a change of heart. From that moment on Arnold was more interested in restoring his fortune. To do so he misused his position. However, from here Arnold seemed to slide down the slippery slope from misuse of his position for personal gain to outright treason. And by treason, Arnold was not going to just defect. No! This was Benedict Arnold and this was going to be big. He was going to turn over West Point and 3,000 soldiers and maybe George Washington. What snapped inside of Arnold? Philbrick dedicates the last seven chapters of the book to illustrate the downfall of a would be American hero. There can be no mistake. Arnold had earned his place in infamy. He ended up being hated by both sides. How did it turn out for the other guy? He has a nation’s capital named after him.

It’s not how you start but how you finish that counts.

[Bfisher · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a useful overview of Benedict Arnold’s military career, and of the personality traits that made him initially a hero, and then led him into treachery. It is a plausible narrative of Arnold as the deeply flawed hero, who might not have gone rogue had he taken a different path at a number of critical points. Philbrick contrasts the deterioration of his character with the growth of Washington’s as they face challenges.

James Wilkinson has an interesting minor role in this story as an Iago to Arnold.

The book has an abrupt ending with the treachery and flight of Arnold. It might have benefited from an epilogue describing Arnold’s later career.